“Back to the Future:” Ideological Dimensions of Intergroup Relations

Jorge

Vala

.

Sven Waldzus

Maria

Manuela Calheiros

Editors

The

Social

Developmental

Construction

of

Violence

and

Intergroup Conflict

Editors Jorge Vala

Instituto de Ciências Sociais (ICS-UL) Unive¡sidade de Lisboa

Lisbon Portugal

Maria Manuela Calheiros CIS-IUL

Instituto Universirário de Lisboa (ISCTE) Lisbon

Portugal

Sven Waldzus CIS-ruL

Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE) Lisbon

Portugal

To

Maria

Benedicta

Monteiro

dedicated

social

p

sychologist,

admired

mentor,

indispensable colleague

and dear

friend

rsBN 978-3-3 t9 -427 26_3 DOI 1 0. 1 007/97 8-3 -319 -427 27 -0

ISBN 978-3-3 19-42727

-0

(eBook) Library of Congress Control Number : 2016944915

O _{Springer Inremarional Publishing Switzerland 2016}

This work is.subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whethe¡ the whole or part

of the material is concernecl,

_specificalþ the rights of fa;slation, reprinting, i"ur"-àr illustrations,

recjtation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physicai'way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electlonic aclaptation,

"omputer sofnváre, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter cleveloped.

Th:..ur: of_general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc,

in

this publication does not imply, even in the absenðe of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from

the relevant protective raws and regulations ancr therãfore free for general use.

The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this

book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neittrer tna _{fuulisher nor} the authors or the editors give a wananty, exprcss or implied, witi respect to tne mate¡afcåntained herein or for any errors or _{omissions that may have been made.}

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

Contents

Part

I

Power,

Self

and

Intergroup

Relations

1

Power and the

Social Self.

Ana

Guinote and

Alice

Cai

2

From a

Sense

of

Setf

to

Understanding Relations

Between

SocialGroups...

Dalila Xavier

de França

3

Intergroup

Relations and

Strategies

of

Minorities

.

.

,

.

_'

.

Joana Alexandre,

Miriam

Rosa and Sven Waldzus

3

35

55

Part

II

Social Construction of Identities and Social

Categories

4

*Back to

the

Future:"

Ideological Dimensions

of Intergroup

Relations

Jacques-Philippe Leyens and Jorge Vala

5

The Common

Ingroup ldentity Model

and the

Development

of

a

Functional

Perspective:

A

Cross'National Collaboration

Sam Gaertner,

Rita

Guerra, Margarida Rebelo, John

Dovidio,

Erick

Hehman and Mathew Deegan

6

When Beliefs

Become

Stronger

than Norms:

Paradoxical

Expressions

of Intergroup

Prejudice

Annelyse Pereira

85

105

r27

Part

III

Social

Developmental

Processes

of

Violence

7

Parent-Child

Interactions

as a Source

of

Parent

Cognition

in

the Context

of Child Maltreatment

_'

. .

_'

.

Maria

Manuela Calheiros and Leonor Rodrigues

t45

v111 _Contents

8

The Promotion

of

Violence

by

the Mainstream Media

of

Communication

.

Patrícia Arriaga,

Dolf

Zillmann

and Francisco Esteves

9

Creating a

More

InclusÍve Society:

Social-Developmental Research

on

Intergroup

Relations

in

Childhood

and Adolescence

.

João

H.

C.

António,

Rita Correia,

Allard R.

Feddes and Rita Morais

10

The

Multi-Norm Structural

Social-Developmentat

Model

of Children's Intergroup Attitudes: Integrating

Intergroup-Loyalty

and

Outgroup

Fairness

Norms

Ricardo Borges Rodrigues, Adam Rutland and Elizabeth Collins

Contributors

171

t97

219

Joana Alexandre GIS-IUL, Instituto universitário

de

Lisboa

(ISCTE-ruL)'

Lisbon,

Portugal

João H.C. António CIS-ruL, Instituto

Universitário

de Lisboa

(ISCTE-IUL)'

Lisbon,

Portugal

Patrícia

arriaga

CIS-IUL, Instituto universitário

de

Lisboa

(ISCTE-IUL),

Lisbon, Portugal

Alice

Cai

University

College

of

London, London,

UK

Maria

Manuela

Calheiros

CIS-IUL,

Instituto

Universitário

de

Lisboa

(ISCTE-IUL),

Lisbon, Portugal

Elizabeth Collins CIS-IUL, Instituto Universitário

de

Lisboa

(ISCTE-IUL)'

Lisbon,

Portugal

Rita

correia

QIS-IUL, Instituto universitário

de

Lisboa

(IScTE-ruL),

Lisbon,

Portugal

Mathew

Deegan University

of

Delaware, Newark,

DE, USA

Dalila xavier

de

França

sergipe Federal

university-uFS,

Aracaju,

Brazil

John

Dovidio

Yale

University, New

Haven,

CT, USA

Francisco

Esteves

CIS-ruL, Instituto

UniversitáLrio

de

Lisboa

(ISCTE-ruL),

Lisbon,

Portugal;

Mid

Sweden

University,

Hämösand, Sweden

allard

R. Feddes university

of

Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Sam

Gaertner

University

of

Delaware, Newark,

DE, USA

Rita Guerra CIS-IUL,

Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL),

Lisbon,

Portugal

X

Contributors

Ana

Guinote

university college

of

London, London,

uK;

Leardership

Knowledge

_{center, Nova school of}

_{Business and Economics, Lisbon, portugal}

Erick Hehman

Dartmouth College, Hanover,

NH,

USA

Jacques-Philippe

Leyens

catholic university

of Louvain-La-Neuve, Louvain-La_ Neuve, Belgium

Rila Morais

cls-ruL,

Instiruto universirário de Lisboa

(IscrE-IUL),

Lisbon, Porlugal

Annelyse

Pereira

cIS-ruL,

Instituto universitário

de

Lisboa

(ISCTE-IUL),

Lisbon,

Portugal

Margarida Rebelo

National

Laborarory

of

civil

Engineering

(LNEC),

Lisbon,

Portugal

Leonor Rodrigues

Institute

of

Sociar sciences

(ICS-ulisboa),

universidade

of

Lisbon,

Lisbon, Portugal

Ricardo

Borges

Rodrigues

CIS-IUL, Instituto

universitário

de

Lisboa

(ISCTE-IUL), Lisbon,

Porrugal

Miriam

Rosa

cIS-[rL,

Instituto universitário

de

Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL),

Lisbon. Portugal

Adam Rutland

Goldsmiths,

University

of

London, London,

UK

Jorge

vala

Instituro de ciências sociais

_{ecS-ulisboa),}

universidade de Lisboa,

Lisbon,

Portugal

sven

waldzus

cIS-IIJL,

Instituto universitário

de Lisboa

(IscrE-ruL),

Lisbon, Portugal

ChaPter

4

ooBack

_to

_the

_{Future:o' Ideological}

Dimensions

of Intergroup

Relations

Jacques-Phiìippe Leyens

and Jorge Vala

Atlstract

Many

phenomena studied

by

social psychology are based on ideologies.

Ideologies are ideas

or

systems of ideas inspired

by

values and objectified

in

social norms about the

way

societies should be.

This

chapter guides our attention

to

the importance

of

the ideological dimension

of

intergroup relations.

This

dimensions had been emphasized aheady

by Tajfel in

his

latest

writings,

but

has then been largely neglected

in

intergroup research.

This

chapter covers research

on explicit

ideologies such as colorblindness and

multiculturalism

as

well

as equalitarianism and meritocracy, but also on rather ideology constituting fundamental beliefs such as

belief

in

a

just

world, limited

scope

of justice,

and denial

of

full

humanity to outgroup members. The research the authors

report

demonstrates

how

ideologies and shared fundamental beliefs have a pervasive influence on people's construction of reality and can bias their judgment and their moral feelings, often undetected by

their

consciousness.

Importantly,

these processes

are

fundamental

for

the

legit-imization

of

asymmetric status and power relations between members

of

different social groups.

Keywords

Ideologies

.

Intergroup

relations

.

Multiculturalism

'

Meritocracy

'

Belief

in

a

just

world .

Infra-humanization

Introduction

Many phenomena studied

by

social psychology are based on ideologies. Ideologies are ideas

or

systems

of

ideas inspired

by

values and objectified

in

social notms about the

way

societies should be. These ideologies can influence the way people

perceive

the world, and

impact people's behaviors

within social

interactions

J.-P. Leyens

(X)

Catholic University of Louvain-La-Neuve, Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium e-mail: jacques-philippe.leyens @uclouvain.be

J. Vala

Instituto de Ciências Sociais (ICS-ULisboa), Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

O Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

J. Vala et al. (eds.), The Social Developmental Constntction of Víolence

and Int e r g r o up C onJlict, DOI 1 0. 1 007/97 8-3 -3 19 -427 27 -0

-4

86 J.-P. Leyens and J. Vala

(e.g.,Katz

and Hass 1988; Lerner 1980; Sidanius and Pratto 1999; Guimond et al. 2014).

Adopting

an inclusive perspective on the concept

of

ideology

(for

a review see

Billig

i984),

this

chapter

will

be devoted

to

analyzing the

role

of

some core ideological principles

in

the dynamic

of

intergroup relations. That is, we focus on the impact

of

ideals about social

life

and specifically about perceived optimal paths toward harmonious intergroup relations on intergroup attitudes and behaviors.l

Throughout its history, the study of intergroup relations has been structured by a

diversified

range

of

theoretical perspectives,

from

personality and psychopatho-logical factors

(Adomo

et

al.

1950) to socio-structural variables (Sherif et al. 196I), cognitive structures

(Allport

1954; Hamilton and

Guifford

1916), and cognitive and

motivational

mechanisms articulated

by the

Social

Identity

Theory

(Tajfel

and

Tumer

1979). Despite the

fact

that ideologies and

their

underlying psychological processes were

initially

considered as

impofiant

factors associated

with

the

trig-gering, exacerbation, and

mitigation

of

intergroup

conflicts, they

did

not

inspire

main

stream research.

For

instance, conservatism and authoritarian ideologies are present in the seminal theoretical approach of Adorno et al. (1950) to discrimination against

minority

groups, and

"social myths"

concerning social

justice

were

iden-tified by Tajfel

(1981)

as

core

organizers

of

intergroup relations. Despite these

conhibutions, however, the

importance

of

ideologies has

either

been relatively

forgotten

or

the

object

of

radical

criticism (Lichtman

1993).

Radical criticism

considers ideologies as literary scenarios (Freeden

et al.2OI3).

Ideologies might be considered scenarios but,

far from

being

literary

options, they determine people's thoughts and behaviors.

This

chapter

follows

the

forgotten research avenue opened

by Tajfel

(1981),

when he proposed the importance

of

ideologies

or

"social myths"

to

understand intergroup relations.

First, we

discuss some research results where ideologies are the

triggering

processes.

We

will

limit

ourselves

to

research

we

have personally conducted.

This

constraint leads us

to

concentrate on

color

blindness versus

color

consciousness ideologies (e.g.

Maquil et

al. 2009),

belief

in

a

just

world

(Lerner 1980; Correia et al. 2007), and beliefs underlying infra-humanization (Leyens et al. 200'D.2 Second,

we

present research

that highlights the

role

of

egalitarian and

meritocratic ideologies

that

frame

justice norms and mitigate

or

exacerbate lThere

are, in fact, diferent focuses on the relationship between ideologies and psychological

phenomena. For instance, Jost et al. (2003) studied some relevant associations between motivated social cognition and conservative ideologies. Our point of view takes another approach: the study of the impact of some core ideological principles about social life on intergroup relations.

zlf

_color

blindness and color consciousness are controversial ideological principles applied to "ethnic" relations, the belief in a just world as well as infra-humanization (based on the common

sense prominence of secondary emotions in relation to primary ones concerning the definition of

humanness) are largely diffused ideological principles that constitute important elements of crucial ideological systems. Indeed, the belief

in

a just world is part of conservative ideology and is

considered a prototype of the ideological level of analysis in social psychology by Doise (1982). Infra-humanization per se is not an ideology but a psychological process associated with the belief that "mine is better than yours," that is, with the ideological principle that suppofts group-lsased

hierarchies (see Sidanius and Pratto 1999).

4

"Back to the Future:" Ideological Dimensions 87

inßrgroup conflicts. Finally,

we

conclude

by

insisting

on

the need

for

an

enlargement

of

the

study

of

the

role

of

ideologies

in

the

construction

of

psy-chosocial dimensions of social reality and specifically on the construction

of

social categories and the dynamics

of

intergroup relations.

This

chapter

is

dedicated

to

Maria

Benedicta

Monteiro

and honors her contri-bution

to

the study

of

violence and intergroup relations. Considering social norms

as

the

objectivation

of

values and ideological principles,

this

paper has

been inspired

by Maria's

contribution to the study

of

the impact

of

social nonns on the way intergroup attitudes

form

and develop (e.g.

Monteiro

et

al.

2009; França and

Monteiro

2013).

Disentangling Racially Prejudiced and Non-racially

Prejudiced

Aspects

of Color

Blindness

and

Color

Consciousness

In

1954, the Supreme

Court

of

the

U.S.A.

decided that schools should be deseg-regated (see

Brown

vs. Board of Education of Topeka

in

1954).

This

decision was sustained by research published some years before,

in

1950,

by

Kenneth Clark (see

Benjamin

and Crousse 2002).

In

his

research,

Clark

concluded that institutional discrimination, and specifically racial segregation

in public

schools, was harmful to

the

psychological development

of

black children.

This point

of

view

was

later developed

by

the hypothesis that social categories automatically

led to

prejudice and that social categories necessarily

imply

ethnocentric conflicts between groups' The same categories were supposed to nourish the negative stereotypes that support

prejudice. Specifically,

research accentuated

the

role

of

decategorization

in

the

elimination of frontiers

(Wilder

1981), and as a path

to

personalized information (Brewer and

Miller

1984). Such a perspective can feed the

ideology

called

color

blindness, which posits that the best way to curb prejudice is by treating individuals equally and

without

regard to their color or

to their

so-called ethnicity. Supporters

of

decategorization were helped

by

the fact that this process favored conditions

of

intergroup contacts

(Allport

1954). This chapter is not the place to develop ideas on contact conditions leading to harmonious relations between groups but

it

is proven that,

given

the presence

of

those conditions, contact

is

the best predictor

of

prej-udice reduction (Pettigrew and Tropp 2006). But this line ofreasoning is not a path

without

obstacles.

For

instance, some authors argue

that the

practice

of

forced

desegregation does not colrespond to appropriate contact conditions (Gerard 1983).

The relation

between

the

accentuation

of

categorization and negative intergroup attitudes was questioned (e.g. Park and Judd 2005), and more complex models

of

social categonzation and intergroup harmony and

conflict

have been developed both

in

the

USA

(Gaertner and

Dovidio

2000) and in Europe (Hewstone and Brown

88 J.-P. Leyens and J. Vala

Adversaries

of

color

blindness

in

Europe and

elsewhere-notably

in

Canada-support

color

conscíousness

(or multiculturalism).

Such ideology emphasizes that differences between groups should be recognized, respected, and

positively

eval-uated (Berry et al.20O6; Bourhis et aL

1991).In

many ways, color consciousness is incongruent

with

color

blindness. Debates over the advantages and disadvantages

of

both ideologies are not lacking.

For

instance,

in

France,

color

consciousness is condemned because

it

is

often presumed that

it

will

lead at best

to

communitari-anism or a

multiplicity

of neighboring ghettos, and, at worst, to endemic racism (see Guimond 2010).

In

fact, the accentuation

of

cultural differences between majorities and minorities is

empirically

associated

with

subtle racial prejudice (Pettigrew and Meertens 1995) or

with

cultural racism (Vala and Pereira 2012). On the other hand,

color

blindness

is criticized primarily

because equality

is

understood as

similarity

and the

models

for

this similarity are

necessarily members

of

the

dominant

majority.

Consequently, such

similarity

means

the

assimilation

of

minorities

by dominant cultural models (Jones 1998) and,

from

this perspective, color blindness can promote a society where the

majority

does

not

recognize the negative experi-ences

of

minorities and minimizes or makes

invisible

their culture and history.

It

is

in

this context that, during the past decade, research has accumulated evidence

in

favor

of

color consciousness as an ideology that can diminish racial prejudice (e.g.,

Apfelbaum et al.

2008;

Demoulin

et

al. 2OO2:

Nofion

et

al.

2006; Richeson and Nussbaum 2004;

Wolsko

et

al. 2000,2006;

Verkuyten 2006).

Leyens and collaborators (Maquil et al. 2009) took a nuanced approach to the two ideologies

_trrg.4.1)

and suggested

that

each

ideology

comprises

a positive

and negative aspect (see also Park and Judd 2005). Theirreasoning was based on two key factors: the importance (high vs. low) attributed to the diversity that characterizes our

social

world or

the

categorical

ethnic

heterogeneity

of

a

given

society, and the salience of an ethnocentric worldview (high vs. low). As illustrated in

Fig.

4. 1, when associated

with low

ethnocentrism,

that is,

recognizing

group

differences and at same

time

respecting and

positively

evaluating these differences,

color

conscious-ness ideology could be associated

with

the strategy

of

acculturation called

integra-tion

or multiculturalism

in

the cultural relations' models proposed by

Berry

(2001) ancl by Bourhis etal. (1991). However,

if

color consciousness is associated with high

Importance of "ethnic" orisins High

colot conscír¡usness

Low Color blindness

Ethnocentrism

Low Integration Individualism

High Segregation Assimilation

Fig.

4.1

Dimensions of color consciousness and color blindness (majorities' perspective). Based

on Maquil et al. (2009)

4

"Back to the Future:" [deological Dimensions 89

ethnocentrism, or devaluation

of minorities'

culture,

it

can generate the segregation of minorities and express racial prejudice (Pettigrew and Meeltens 1995) or promote the essentialization

of

group differences (Verkuyten 2006).

On the other hand, color blindness ideology associated

with

low

ethnocentrism corresponds

to

a strategy

of

acculturation that

Berry

and Bourhis called

individu-alism, i.e,, recognizing the salience of the uniqueness of each human being over and above social categories.

In

contrast, the combination

of

color

blindness and high ethnocentrism sustains a strategy that produces assimilation, a model

of

accultur-ation based

on

the cultural inferiorization

of

minorities.

In

fact,

such

a

strategy requires that minorities conform to the way

of life

that majorities consider superior, i.e.,

their own

culture.

This

picture illustrates

how effectively color

blindness and color consciousness have both a dark and a

bright

side as ideological principles

in

relation

to

cultural relations between asymmetrical groups

(Levin

et

al. 2012).

In

the context

of

this theoretical framework,

Maquil

et al. (2009) tested whether

the

degree

to

which

people

unconsciously adhere

to

the different

strategies

of

acculturation (assimilation,

individualism,

integration-multiculturalism, and segre-gation) correlates

with

the performance

in

an intellectual task carried out in different contexts

(with

an assimilated

or

with

an integrated parlner). Participants were rall-domly assigned to one of two conditions:

in

one condition, participants had to solve a problem together

with

a clearly Moroccan female student, dressed

in

European style, i.e., completely assimilated;

in

another condition, participants had to interact

with

the

same student dressed

in

the identical

European

clothing but

wearing a

Muslim veil

(integrated). The more the Belgian female participants endorsed color conscious ideology (pro-integration of pro-segregation), the better their performance was. Other researchers have already produced such a result

in

White-Black

inter-actions

(Dovidio

2001), demonstrating that clear racists or non-racists wete better

in

a task

with

a black person than aversive racists. Moreover, the more students favored assimilation,

the

better

they

performed

when

the

Moroccan

girl

was completely assimilated. This result is not surprising since

it

corresponds to what assimilation is and wants.

More

surprising, at

first

sight, was the result

of pro-individualism

(po

color blindness and non-ethnocentric) students: they succeeded least when the stu-dent wore the

Muslim veil.

In other words, when Belgian students were

in

favor

of

individualism,

they

did not

accept

that

others displayed

belongingness

to

a

group. These findings tend

to

show that the

individualistic

strategy, albeit not eth-nocentric, is the one that generates most "misunderstandings"

in

social interaction,

specifically

more than

integration/multiculturalism

(the other

non-ethnocentric strategy).

In

a more general context, other research

by Maquil

et al.

(2009) also showed that both among the majorities and minorities integration and individualism correlated negatively and signiflcantly

with

different measures of prejudice, whereas assimilation and separation cortelated

positively with

prejudice.

Because ideologies are systems of well-entrenched ideas inspired by values, they are often resistant

to

empirical data.

For

instance, despite resealch results,

multi-culturalism is increasingly criticized

in

Great

Britain, with

the argument being that

ghettos are replacing integration

or

that

integration

is

generating segregation. Interestingly, those most opposed

to

the non-racist aspect

of

color

consciousness

90 _{J.-P. Leyens and J. Vala}

(integration

_or

multiculturalism)

are

the

non-ethnocentric

procolor

blind

persons

(individualists).

The

individualists

support

the idea that

their

srance

is

rhe

only

democratic one (Gauchet 2002). They resist the reality that people,

willingly

or not, are parts

of

groups and

could

not

survive

without

group protection. Encounters between two individuals are certainly better than encounters between a Black and a

White

person.

Individualism

is,

however,

impossible

on a

large

scale, whereas integration may attain the aims looked

for by

individualists: successful integration leads

to

encounters between

individuals who

are also members

of

groups.

Concerning

the impact

of

assimilationist

ideology

on

public policies,

French

policy

toward immigration is clearly shaped by this ideology (Guimond

et aI.2014,

2015). France

is

not

alone

in

this

domain.

In

Flanders,

Belgium,

language

is of

paramount impoftance. People speak

different Flemish

dialects

but

the

Flemish gover'Ílment wants to make Dutch an

official

language, even

for

foreigners who do

not

plan

to

stay

in

Flanders.

The

paradox

in

the vicinity

between France and Flanders is that

if

the Belgian government had

followed

French assimilation during the nineteenth century, Flanders would speak French like the rest of Belgium. These examples show a preference

for official

assimilationist positions

in

France3 and

in

Flemish Belgium.

Recently

in

the United Kingdom and Germany, the conservative and center-right have been

calling

for

an end

of

multiculturalist policies.

However, research con-tinues

to

show that

multicultural ideology

can overcome the

potentially

negative aspects

of

salient categorization,

that

is,

salience

of

diversity

in

a

given

social context. Indeed,

following

the

research

by

Wolsko

et al.

(2000,

2006)

into

the

positive impact

of

multiculturalism salience

on

judgments about

groups,

Costa-Lopes et" al. (20L4) manipulated the salience of ethnic categories

in

Portugal,

as

well

as

the

salience

of

multiculturalism.

Results showed

that

categorization

salience

led

to

more ingroup bias unless a

multicultural ideology

was also made salient.

Multiculturalism

buffered the negative impact

of

categonzation salience.

Color

blindness and

color

consciousness are the most discussed dimensions

of

ideological

thinking

in

diverse

societies

not only

by

common people

but,

as

illustrated above, by public decision

policy

makers. The importance of a discussion about the advantages and disadvantages

ofthose

ideologies is based on the fact that both reflect preoccupations

with

social harmony and

try

to

solve social problems.

The

model presented

in

Fig. 4.1

intends

to

enlarge the context

of

the traditional approach

to

the ideologies about

cultural diversity

and goes beyond the model

of

Bery

(2001)

about

acculturation because

it

integrates

acculturation

strategies

within

the context

of

ideological options.

Like

color

blindness and

color

consciousness ideologies,

beliefs

about social

justice _{are other} crucial factors studied

in

the search

for

a more harmonious society.

3Guimond

et al. (2015) surveyed a representative sample of French people. The results do not corespond to the oficial policy. Whereas the French think that their compatriots are in favor of assimilation, they are in fact pro-integration. Only the extreme rightwing favors assimilation.

4

"Back to the Future:" Ideological Dimensions 91

We

will

focus now on the Just

World

Theory proposed

by

Lerner (1980), as

it

can

open stimulating contributions

to

the understanding

of justice

ideologies as orga-nizers

of

intergrouP relations.

Belief

in

ø

just

World,

Secondøry

Victimization,

ønd

IntergrouP

Relations

According to the

just world

hypothesis

(Lemer

1980), individuals consider, at least

implicitly,

that the

world

is

just

because people get what they deserve and deserve

what they get,

a key

aspect

of

conservative

ideological thinking.

In

this

sense, injustice,

particularly

the suffering

of

innocent

victims,

constitutes a threat

to

the

belief

in

a just world,

leading individuals

to

engage

in

different

strategies to

re-establish the

truth

of

this

fundamental belief,

A

logical

and

rational

strategy to restore

justice

is to

help the victims through

emotional

or

instrumental supporl, acting

for

example on the conditions that led

to

suffering and injustice. However, when people believe that

it

is impossible or non-normative to help, they engage in strategies

of victims'

secondary

victimization.

Secondary

victimization

can assume different

fotms,

such as devaluing the

victims'

suffering

or

implicitly

considering that

they

deserve

to

suffer.

This

secondary

victimization

is

mainly

applied when

victims

arc perceived as innocent (Correia and

Vala

2003).

An

overview

of

Lerner's theory about this

belief

in

the

just wodd

shows that

it

was

primarily

conceived

in

order

to

understand judgments

of

fairness at the

indi-vidual

or

interpersonal

level (Lerner

and

Clayton 2011; Hafer

and Bègue 2005; Dalbert 2009).

Building

on this

research,

Coreia

et

al. (2007) extended the

just

world belief to the intergroup level

of

analysis. They formulated and experimentally analyzed the hypothesis that injustices that occur

to

innocent

victims only

threaten our belief

in

a

just world

if

the victims belong to

"our world"

(our ingroups) but not

when

victims

are

members

of

outgroups,

namely disliked minorities.

In

other words,

they

tested the hypothesis that

the

suffering

of

an outgroup

victim is

not evaluated

within

the framework of justice principles.

In

one

of

the

studies carried

out

to

test

this

hypothesis (Correia

et

al. 2O0l), participants were confronted

with

a five-minute

film

showing a

child

experiencing great suffering. The innocence

of

the

victim

was manipulated, as

well

as the

vic-tim's

group (a

child

belonging to a typical Pofiuguese

family

vs. a

child

belonging to a Gypsy

family). After

the

film,

participants were invited to collaborate

in

a color

perception

task. This

perceptual

task was actually an

emotional Stroop

task developed

by Hafer

(2000), through

which

the threat

to

the

belief

in

a

just

world

was measured.

In

the perceptual color task, parlicipants were invited to

identify

the

color

of

a set

of

asterisks that appeared

on

a computer screen. The display

of

the asterisks was preceded

by

the subliminal projection

of

a

word

related

or

not

with

justice on the screen.

It

was expected that words related to

justice would

interfere more

in

the task (higher latencies)

in

the condition where the

victim

was presented

92

Innocent

Non-Innocent

Innocent

Non-Innocent

Ingroup

Outgroup

fig.4.2

Means

of

color identification latencies for justice-related wo¡ds and neutral-related words (Based on study 2, in Coneia et al.20O7)

as an innocent ingroup

victim.

The results

following

the hypothesis allowed

for

the interpretation that

only

the innocent

victim

ofthe

ingroup threatened the observers' belief

in

a

just world (Fig. a.Ð.

These results were replicated

in

other experiments where

it

was also possible

to verify

when,

in

an intergroup context, an innocent

victim

is

more

likely to be

the

target

of

secondary

victimization (Aguiar

et

al.

2008).

Aguiar et al. (2008) designed their studies based on the scenario used by Correia

et

al. (2001). One

of

these studies analyzed the degree

of

victim

discrimination, a

form

of

secondary

victimization.

As

in

previous

studies, participants

were

con-fronted

with

a

film

about a child who was presented as an ingroup member (a

child

belonging

to

a typical

Portuguese

family)

versus an outgroup member

(a

gypsy

child,

as

in

previous studies). However,

in

this new research, the authors not

only

manipulated the group the

child

belonged

to but

also contrasted his status

(victim

vs. non

victim).

The derogation

of

the target

child

was evaluated using an

implicit

measure, called o'intergroup time bias"

(ITB)

(Vala et

al.2Ol2).

The intergroup time bias refers

to

the time

people invest

making

a

judgment

about

a

target (e.g. an ingroup member) compared

with

the

time

spent on the same judgment relative to another target (e.g. an outgoup member). To measure

ITB,

participants were invited to form an accurate impression oftargets indicating whether or not traits that appear

on

a computer screen

apply to

those targets

or

not. The time

spent

on trait

attri-bution

(and

not their

valence)

to

the

targets indicates

the

interest

and

attention deserved

by

targets:

the

longer

the

time

invested

by

participants

to

form

an impression, the greater the value of the target under evaluation. In the experiment

of

Aguiar

et al. (2008), participants formed an impression about

four

targets (ingroup vs. outgroup

child;

victim

vs. non-victim).

As expected, the

victim

of the ingroup was more derogated (less time invested to

form

an

impression

of

ingroup

victim) than the non-victim

of

the

ingroup. According to our interpretation, this occurred because the ingroup

victim

threatened

J.-P. Leyens and J. Vala

800 750 700 650 600 550 -500

I

n Justice Neutral

4

"Back to the Future:" Ideological Dimensions 93

paficipants' belief

in

a

just

world.

Moreover, participants invested the same time

judging

the

victim

and

non-victim of

the outgroup because outgroup members

did

not threaten their belief in a

just

world.

In

sum, together, these studies show that the suffering

of

ingroup

members-but

not

of

disliked outgrôup

members-is

affected by justice concerns. Moreover, this last research also shows that, paradoxically, an

ingroup

victim is

ryore derogated

or

the object

of

more secondary victimization than an outgroup victim.

It

was

in

this research context that Correia

ef

al. (2007) proposed

revisiting

the concept

of

scope

of

justice

(Deutsch 1985;

Opotow

1990; Staub

1990). This concept proposes

that people

create

ideological frontiers

for the

application

of

justice principles and, consequently, that some people are excluded

from

the 'Just

world."

Indeed Lima-Nunes

et

al.

(2013)

found that the

relationship

between

prejudice and discrimination against immigrants is mediated by a restricted scope

of

justice. This mediation is moderated by people's belief

in

a

just world.

Specifically, the mediation

only

occurs

for

high

believers. Moreover, the relevance

of

the phe-nomena described

is

stressed

by

the results

of Alves

and Correia (2013) demon-strating that the

belief

in

a

just

world

is

socially normative.

That is,

this

belief

is perceived

as

a

socially valued

way

of

thinking

and

an

acceptable

principle

of

legitimation

of

social relations (Costâ-Lopes et

al.

2013).

Graded

Humnnity

Relíes

on Metaphorical

ldeologies

About

Alterations

of

Humanness

Results presented

in

the

previous section

suggest

that not

all

human

beings,

including ingroup

members, are included

in

the scope

of justice. This is

perhaps because not all human beings are perceived to be part of our moral community and are perceived as not totally human. Indeed, it is not infrequent that some groups label themselves

as

'opeople"

or, like

the

Bantus,

call

themselves

"humans" and

call neighboring groups derogative names such as "louse's eggs."

As

will

be seen later, dehumanization is often

linked to

human-made disasters such as genocides (Staub 1989). However,

this

extremity

is

not

necessary and people

may

unconsciously dehumanize outgroups

in

everyday life.

The

broadest sense

of

dehumanízation

is

the

restriction

of

humanness. Dehumanized groups are not as human as our group is. Two metaphors are normally used to describe the dehumanized groups (Haslam 2006). Either they are

like

ani-mals (animalistic dehumanization)

or they look

like

objects

or

machines

(mecha-nistic

dehumanization). These

two

types

of

dehumanization correspond

to

two

distinct kinds of humanness. Humanity may be defined in terms

of

what is uniquely human compared to animals.

It

is the case of uniquely human or secondary emotions (e.g.,

love,

admiration, contempt,

envy)

in

opposition

to

non-uniquely human or primary emotions (e.g., happiness, surprise, fear, sadness).

It

can also be defined by the negative core characteristics that

form

human nature (e.g., narrow-mindedness,

94 J.-P. Leyens and J. Vala

stubbornness).

While the first definition

contrasts humans

to

animals

(human uniqueness), the second one opposes humans to robots (human nature). Believing

in

the humanity

of

ingroups and perceiving outgroups as less valuable

is

part

of

the principle that "mine is better than yours," and

it

stems from the ideas that sustain and

legitimate

group-based hierarchies (see Sidanius and Pratto

i999). In

this section,

we

will

focus on infra-humanization, that is, the

belief

that outgroup members are

less human than we are, and that they are closer to animals than we are (Leyens et al.

2000,2007).It

is a perception of graded humanity that should not be confused

with

dehumanization,

where the

gradient

of

humanity

is

reduced

to

almost

nothing (Leyens 2015).

Infra-humanization

is

particularly important

in

the understanding

of

intergroup relations because

it

does not need

conflicting

relations between groups.

It

requires

identification

of

group

members

with

their group,

as

well

as the perception that

one's

group

is

different

from

outgroups.

Another important predictor of

infia-humanization has

to

do

with

symbolic threat, that

is,

the threat that customs and values

will

change due to the action

of

outgroups. The symbolic threat means that ingroup ideology

is

at

risk.

Stated otherwise, because our common ideology is threatened, we react

with

another ideological principle, the ingroup superiority and related outgroup infra-humanizationthaf restores our group's perceived high status. The first studies about this topic appeared at the end

oflast

century, and today an

increasing

number

of

them,

over

140

publications,

show

the

functions of

infia-humanization (Leyens 2009; Haslam and Loughnan 2014).

For

instance, by

infra-humanizing outgroups, people

do

not feel culpability

in

harming

them. Infra-humanization

also

alleviates

responsibility,

and

justifies

not

helping

needy persons. Moreover,

it

explains

why

discrimination may occur

without

feelings

of

guilt.

Infra-humanization is also a specific form

of

derogation

of

outgroups that are not socially successful. To take an example, a study conducted

inBrazil

(Lima

and

Yala

2004) showed

how

economic success is

ideologically linked with

skin color.

In

this investigation, White Brazilian participants were presented

with

a story about people that succeeded or that failed in their endeavor. The description

ofpeople

was

illustrated

with

pictures

of

Black

people versus those

of

White

people. Pre-tests

indicated

that

those people were clearly perceived as

Black

or

White

people.

Independently

of

color,

targets

that

did not

succeed

were

infra-humanized. Surprisingly, people

who

succeeded were perceived as whiter than people who

did

not.

By

contrast, individuals who failed economically were perceived as darker than

people

that

succeeded.

For Black

people,

the judgment

is

clear:

their color

is associated

with

failure and, as a consequence, with reduced humanity. The situation

is

ambiguous

for

Whites. Their color

will

depend on

their

success and,

if

they

fail,

they

will

become infra-humanized

"Mulattoes."

Thus, 'oMulattoes" have the

color

of

successful Blacks and of

failing

Whites.

Fiske

et

al. (2002) have

built

a stereotype content model

of

groups around two orthogonal dimensions: warmth and competence. Rich people,

for

instance,

will

be

in

the high competence/low warmth quadrant,

while

a housewife

will

be

in

the

low

competenceihigh warmth quadrant.

Using

neurological imaging,

Harris

and Fiske (2006) showed that the brain

activity

associated

with

the

lodlow

quadrant, such as

4

"Back to the Future:" Ideological Dimensions 95

the homeless and drug addicts was more similar to the brain

activity

pattem that is usually observed

in

situations

with

objects than

in

situation

with

people. That is, these results suggest that people

in

the

low/low

quadrant are no longer considered human, but disgusting objects.

Similarly,

Vaes and PaladiÌro (2010) found that the more typical the characteristics of

low/low

groups are, the less human they are rated (see also Leyens

et

al.2012).

Research

on

dehumanization

is

still

in

limbo

and

care

should

be

taken,

as

illustrated

in

the

following

study.

Morera

et

al.

(2014)

have shown that the dis-tinction between animalistic and mechanistic dehumanization and the convergence between people

low

in

competence and

watmth and

non-humanity are

not

that stable. Participants had to associate human, animal, and machine words

with

three groups

of

people: professionals (e.g. radiologists, bankers),

evil

persons

(e.g.

a mercenary and a terrorist), and the lowest of the

low

people,

like

a homeless person and a

drug

addict. Professionals were

linked

to

human words;

evil

persons were associated

to

animals ønd machines;

finally

the lowest

of

the

low

received animal qndhuman words.

Evil

persons thus mixed the two kinds of dehumanization. Drug addicts and the homeless may have been seen as humans given the Spanish context where many people lost their

jobs

and homes because

of

the ûnancial crisis. These findings do not

put

earlier results at

risk but

suggest that social context can

influ-ence the meaning

of

social categories and, consequently, the infra-humanization process.

E q

uølitarinnism,

M

eríto

cracy, and

Intergroup

Relntio ns

We

will

now

discuss

our

research

into

the

role

of

equalitarian and meritocratic ideologies that shape

justice

norms on the expression and consequences

of

preju-dice. We

will

start

by

studies on the role

of

equalitarianism and meritocracy

in

the effects of infra-humanization and then we

will

discuss our research on the impact

of

those ideological principles on racial prejudice.

Egalitarianism,

Meritocracy,

and

Infra-Humanization

As

mentioned above, several studies have shown

that

infra-humanization

is

not inevitable and can be moderated

by

different social factors (Vaes

et

al.2012,

lor

a review). Importantly, as reported

in

a study carried out by Pereira et al. (2009), the impact

of

infra-humanizafion

on

discdmination

may

be moderated

by

egalitarian and meritocratic ideologies.

In

the study, participants

first

received an article

sup-posedly taken

from

a

prestigious

weekly

newspaper.

In

order

to

manipulafe infra-humanization of Turkish people, for a third of the subjects, the article reported a study showing

that

the ancient

Turkish

language was comparable

to

European languages

in

the

frequency

of

secondary emotions words.

For

another

third,

the

Symbolic Threet

Infia-Hmanization

96 J.-P. Leyens and J. Vala

Fig.

4.3

Efect of infra-humanization on discrimination against

Turkey, mediated by

syn-rbolic threat after egalitarian norm prime (Based

on Pereira et al. 2009)

vocabulary.

In

the

third

condition

(the

control condition),

the

text

dealt

with

the

relationship between age

and

learning

a

new

language.

Symbolic threat

and opposition to the entrance

of

Turkey

in

the

EU

were the main dependent variables. Participants exhibited greater openness to Turkey's

joining

the European Union and expressed a lesser feeling of threat when Turkish was described as similar to the

European languages concerning

the

frequency

of

secondary

emotions

(non-infra-humanization

condition) than when

it

was

presented

as

dissimilar. Interestingly, symbolic threat mediated the

link

between the differential perception

of

Turkish

(infra-humanization

vs.

humanization) and the opposition

to

Turkey's enlrance in the European Union. That is, the differential perception of Turkey led to different levels

ofthreat

that explained the degree

ofopposition

to Turkey as part

of

Europe (Fig. 4.3).

In

a

follow-up

study, infra-humanization was manipulated and participants were primed

with

egalitarian versus meritocratic ideologies. Independently

of

the

ideo-logical

manipulation, infra-humanization had an effect

on

symbolic threat and on

the

opposition

to

Turkey's

entrance

in

European

Union. The

interesting finding deals

with

the

mediation.

When

meritocracy

was

salient (primed), there was no mediation.

It

was not the case when egalitarianism was primed. Parlicipants primed

with

an egalitarian norm

felt

the need to explain their discrimination against Turkey through the evocation

of

the

symbolic

threat.

This justification

was unnecessary

when the context

promoted meritocracy,

that

is,

when

it

was

salient

that

some groups, due

to their

characteristics, deserve more and are superior

to

others. This study illustrated how egalitarianism and meritocracy have different implications

for

the legitimation

of

discrimination and the relationship between infra-humanization and discrimination.

Egalitarianism,

Meritocracy,

and Racial Prejudice

Inspired

by

Sherif

and

Sherif's

(1953) group norms theory

of

attitudes, Crandall

et

al. (2002) developed a normative theory about prejudice.

This

theory proposes that social norms affect the expression

of

prejudice, i.e., prejudice decreases when group norrns proscribe

it

and increases when they are permissive.

In

the same vein,

Monteiro

and

collaborators

(Monteiro

et al.

2009;

França

and Monteiro

2013)

specifically analyzed the impact

ofthe

anti-racism norm salience on the expression

4

"Back to the Future:" Ideological Dimensions 97

of racial prejudice by children.

In

a

typical

study of this research

line

(see Chap. 10

of

this book), the experimenter asked 6-7-year-old children versus

9-10

years old to distribute resources

to Black

and

White

children.

Two

experimental conditions were used: activation

of

the anti-racist

norm

(the experinienter

is

present) versus

non-activation

(the

experimenter

is

absent).

Results showed

that

6-7-year-old White children expressed prejudice independently

of

the

norm's

salience, whereas the

9-10-year-old

only

discriminated against

Black children when the

anti-racist

norm was

not

activated. These

findings

suggest

that older children

are

able

to

monitor

their

behavior

in

accordance

with

group

norm

salience.

Similarly,

the theory

of

aversive racism (Gaertner and

Dovidio

1986) stresses the importance

of

contextual anti-racism norms

on

the expression

of

racial

prejudice.

According

to

this

theory,

when the

interaction

context

indicates

the socially

desirable

type

of

response, or when individuals feel that their self-def,nition as egalitarian subjects is

in

question, they are less

likely

to

think

and act

in

a discriminatory way.

Another

line of

research opened

by

Katz

and Hass (1988) examined the rela-tionship between

noms

and racial prejudice using a different perspective. This line

of

research focused

on two

opposite

ideological

perspectives about

justice:

one based on the value

of

egalitarianism and the other based on the value

of

meritoc-racy. According to the authors' hypotheses, the

priming

of egalitarianism attenuated racial prejudice, whereas the priming of meritocracy exacerbated

it.

As proposed by Sidanius

and Pratto (1999), meritocracy and

egalitarianism

conespond

to

two opposite

legitimizing myths

regarding

social

dominance: one, meritocracy,

is

a hierarchy-enheurcing

myth

according

to

which

groups are unequal; and the othel, egalitarianism,

is a

hierarchy-attenuating

myth.

Consequently,

the

salience

of

hieralchy-enhancing

myths,

like

meritocracy,

in

contrast

to

egalitarianism, con-tributes

to

greater levels

of

racial-based

inequality

as shown

in

the study

of

Katz

and Hass (1988).

Following this line

of

research, Pereira and

Vala

(2014) carried out a series

of

studies to examine the impact of egalitarianism and meritocracy on the "Intergroup Time

Bias"

(ITB) in

impression formation, that is, pro-ingroup bias manifested

in

the

time

invested

to

make

a

judgment

about

an ingroup

member

relative

to

an

outgroup member.

As

mentioned above,

they

proposed that

time

is

an important resource and, consequently, people

will

invest more time

in

ingroup than outgroup members, when racialized social relations are

at

stake

(Vala

et

al. 2012).

In

this context, less time invested

in

the outgroup relative

to

the ingroup means outgroup

discrimination.

According

to

Pereira

and Vala

(2014),

the

ITB

effect can

be moderated

by

the contextual activation

of

egalitarianism and meritocracy.

In

their study, participants were

randomly

assigned

to

one

of

the

following

conditions: a condition where they were primed

with

the egalitarian norm; another one where the meritocratic norrn was

primed;

and a

control

(no prime). Results showed that the

activation

of

egalitarianism

significantly

reduced

the

ITB

effect relative

to

the

control condition.

However, meritocracy

did

not significantly

increase

ITB.

This

later result can

be

discussed

in

the

context

of

the

diverse social

meanings

of

meritocracy. Indeed,

Son

Hing et al.

(2011)

showed

that

meritocracy can mean different things to people: descriptive meritocracy, that is the perception that society

98 J.-P. Leyens and J. Vala

actually rewards effort and merit; or prescriptive meritocracy, that is, an ideal about the functioning

of

a society, a society where effort and

merit

should be effectively rewarded.

According

to

Son

Hing et al.

(2011)

the

later meaning

of

meritocracy functions as a principle

ofjustice

whereas descriptive meritocracy is associated

with

the

legitimization

of

social inequalities. Coming back

to

the results

of

Pereira and

Yala

(2014),

it

seems

very

likely

that the manipulation

of

meritocracy

they

used was perceived by participants as a mixture of prescriptive and descriptive meanings

of

meritocracy and, consequently,

only slightly

increased outgroup discrimination.

Egalitarianism also has different

meanings.

A

study

by Lima et al.

(2005) showed that descriptive meritocracy

clearly

increased the

implicit

racial prejudice measured

by

the

IAT

(Greenwald

et

al.

1998). However,

egalitarianism only reduced

implicit

prejudice when

primed

as

"solidarity

egalitarianism"

(i.e.

social

egalitarianism

that involves solidarity

between

citizens)

but

no

effects

were obtained when

it

was primed as

"formal

egalitarianism"

(in

the sense

of

constitu-tional

equality

of rights

and duties

for

all).

Despite the ambiguity

of

the meanings

of

egalitarianism and meritocracy,

liter-ature

is not

scarce about the effects

of

these normative

principles on

intergroup attitudes.

Work

by Augoustinos et al. (2005) further illustrates this. They examined anti-affirmative action attitudes

in

Australia and demonstrated that attitudes corre-lated

to

the endorsement

of

meritocratic orientations. The

priming

of

meritocracy also led members

of low

status groups to perceive that they were not discriminated against

(McCoy

and

Major

2006),

On

the contrary,

the

contextual activation

of

egalitarianism

facilitates individuation

in

impression

formation (Goodwin

et

al. 2000). In the same vein, Bodenhausen and Macrae (1998) suggest that the egalitarian norrn may

inhibit

the categonzation of members of

minority

groups, and

Maio

et al. (2001) report effects

ofthe

salience ofreasons for equality on egalitarian behavior

in

a

minimal

group paradigm.

Using

representative samples

of

European countries, Vala et al. (2004) and Ramos and Vala (2009) showed that egalitarianism predicts positive attitudes toward immigrants whereas meritocracy predicts negative ones.

Conclusions

Humans are social beings and,

for

most aspects

of their

wellbeing, people need to interact

with privileged

others and these others are at the

origin

of

groups. Social psychology theorized groups as a result

of

the social categorization process and,

in

this

sense, groups are

like

boundaries.

But history

tells us that boundaries always

imply

more

or

less cooperative

or

conflicting relations

and

that

boundaries and

relations are fed

by beliefs

and ideologies. Most research has been dedicated to the study

of

boundaries through the process

of

social categorization and

its

dynamic

that

creates

groups,

superordinate

groups,

recategonzation

of

groups,

or

even

implosion

of

groups

via

decategonzation. Less research has been directed

to

the

study

of

group

relations

and how the

nature

of

those relations moves

from

cooperation to

conflict

and shapes people's minds and collective action. Even less

4

"Back to the Future:" Ideological Dimensions 99

research has studied the

way

ideologies configure categories and intergroup

rela-tions. This

chapter

aims

to

contribute

to

underlining

and

foregrounding

the

importance

of

research

on

ideologies

and

intergroup

creation and

relations. Nevertheless, ideologies were present at the beginning

of

the

inquiry

about inter-group

conflict,

as can be illustrated

by

the research program developed by

Adomo

et al.

(1950) and inspired

by

the intellectual climate

of

the

Frankfurt

School.

In

addition, the last paper

by Tajfel

(1984) deals

with

ideologies,

justice,

and inter-group relations.

Accordingly,

ideologies that trigger intergroup processes are presented and dis-cussed

in

this

chapter: ideologies

of

color blind/color

consciousness about inter-group differences and the construction

ofjuster

societies; the

beliefin ajust

world, based on the conservative ideology, and its impact on ingroup and outgroup

victims'

evaluations;

the

ideas about humanness

that

structure

the

infra-humanization

of

groups

in

the context

of

a

bounded scope

of

justice

and group-based hierarchy ideologies; and

finally

meritocratic and egalitarian ideologies objectified

in

social

norns.

In

other words,

we

proposed and

tried

to

show

how

ideologies and their conespondent social norms inspire the efforts to regulate diverse societies, establish

the

boundaries

of

humanness, and

underlie the

meanings

of justice

and justice principles that

justify

racial prejudice and discrimination.

This chapter has been

mainly

structured

by

our own research and its relation to the research

of

other authors

who

share

similar

perspectives

on

the

role

of

ide-ologies

in

intergroup relations.

This

option has allowed us to present our approach

and

research.

However,

it

excludes

the

discussion

of

important

dimensions

of

intergroup relations also shaped

by

ideologies,

like

the study

of

extreme forms

of

conflict,

such as nationalism (Staub 1989;

Billig

1995), dehumanizing, moral dis-engagement, and

deligitimization

(Bandura 1999;

Bar-Tal

2004), to give

just

a few examples. Indeed, the

banality

of

torture after September 11, the current reemer-gence

of

nationalism

in

Europe, the religious

neo-extremisms,

the

banality

of

submission

in

the

different

spheres

of

society should

be the

object

of

urgent research

by

social

psychologists

in

the

context

of

an

inclusive

conception

of

ideologies.

To sum up, group boundaries are sometimes

like

walls. Because groups and their boundaries are social constructions, ideologies have a

role

in

this

landscape too. Ideologies may reinforce the strength of the wall

dividing

groups, but they may also indicate holes

in

the

concrete,

or

even produce them,

In

fact,

boundaries are no more than what

we

make

of

them and the cement

is

provided

by

our ideas about what societies should be.

Àcknowledgments The authors want to thank Denis Sindic, Rob Outten, Cicero Pereira, Rui

Costa Lopes, Sven Waldzus, Isabel Correia, and Pedro Magalhães for providing helpful comments